When the Inquirer requested the resumés of other top department deputies. DPW refused, saying that personnel files are confidential. Religion is at the center of the Howard Center, where Patterson works as editor. It's fair to wonder how right it is for his extreme views to help shape a policy - in Patterson's case, welfare policy - that will affect so many in need. And we can't help but be disturbed by the contempt Patterson must have held, given his beliefs, for many of the clients served by the department.
Refusing to let taxpayers view the qualifications of the people working for them is an outrage, and exhibits a misunderstanding of the relationship between taxpayers and government.
It's not clear whether DPW has violated the state's right-to-know law in this case. The Office of Open Records has classified resumés as public records before, but the law contains exemptions specifically for personnel files that the agency might be able to cite as legal justification for its decision.
But to delve deep into the technical details here misses the point: Of course the resumés of high-ranking officials should be available to any member of the public who requests them. State officials work for taxpayers (pointing this out gets tiresome after a while). Top officials in particular are well-compensated, with terrific benefits - including the three for whom resumés were requested, whose annual salaries range from $89,000 to $102,000.
Taxpayers have a right to know what background and expertise - including educational background and past affiliations - public servants at any pay grade bring to the table that qualifies them to work for us.
When Pennsylvania's right-to-know law went into effect in 2009, it dramatically improved what was widely regarded as one of the worst open-records policies of any state in the country.
The Corbett administration, by refusing to release these resumés not only sets back this transparency, but also makes us wonder: What are they trying to hide?
